False Ideas about Democracy

We shouldn't equate democracy immediately with some warm ethical posture, a reaching out to people, or even a close huddling of people, sappy togetherness, which, since it allows for no creativity and endless coddling and protection, is decadent and bound to lose out to the strong man with harder, meaner desires.

What is so repulsive about 'democracy' for Nietzsche is not the political structure itself--lets not forget that technically ancient greece was a democracy strictly speaking--but its worldly manifestation, what it had turned into. In other words, if he saw people leaping around and creating the most amazing things humans had ever seen or heard (which was often the case--art was rampant--but making oneself, celebrating the earth and life, were rare) but they lived in a democracy also, he would not have been so dissatisfied. The point is, just because we read Nietzsche as a harsh critic of democracy does not mean we need to call in the dictator, as so many did in Germany in the 20s.
>But you're trying to make the essentially unpalatable go down smooth (Nietzsche's aristocratic sensibilities, his yearning for an authoritative political life (one of rulers and ruled, masters and slaves, who both agree with the arrangement).  This isn't to say that he would have condoned National Socialism outright (he wasn't down with anti-semitism, thought it stunk, and criticized nationalism).

 The dictator is not the overman nor is he a solution to the problems of democracy. Indeed, the nihilism that Nietzsche forecasted with the masses is just brought to its end under the arm of the dictator--the dictator wants to 'have' things for himself--he cannot stand the chaos that accompanies a political structure like democracy. A question: what was life like under Hitler or Stalin? Did people enjoy their lives? Were they usually fearful and therefore obedient to their rulers and the party, or did the movements they bought into enliven them? complete them as people? perhaps a false idea of completeness came into their heads...perhaps a human is never complete...

Christ's 'Uncoupling' Vs. Zarathustra's 'Lordly Dismissal'

In his explanation of Christian forgiveness, found in the section of his 'Fragile Absolute' called "Christ's Uncoupling," Zizek notes that Christ's famous motto (if someone slaps your right cheek, turn him to your left cheek also) is not some "stupid masochism" or "humble acceptance of one's humiliation," but rather an invocation of the holy ghost, a recognition of both ones own (Christ's) and ones enemys place in the religious community. Rather than slap his enemy back, Christ seeks to break the endless cycle of retribution which strives to balance the cosmic order but never can. In other words, Christ's act of forgiveness is an appeal to the universal realm, to what is common in man. This is what Zizek means by Christ's "uncoupling": no matter what ones particular place in the social order is, each individual is guaranteed a place in Christ's order. This, according to Zizek, is the desired motive behind Christian forgiveness.
It is this model of dealing with one's enemy that Nietzsche challenges in the parable called "The Adder's Bite" in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Even though Zarathustra's initial impulse is to thank the serpent for poisoning him and bid him to repossess that poison (for "(the serpent) is not rich enough to present it to (him)") he is far from prescribing forgiveness. Rather, he says,
"When, however, ye have an enemy, then return him not good for evil: for that would abash him. But prove that he hath done something good to you."
Abashing one's enemy, we are to assume, serves to discourage him from further harming you by either embarrassing him (when you easily forgive him for something, he becomes confused and self conscious and eventually pitiful) or forcing him to flee out of impatience. But for Nietzsche this gesture of forgiveness (or non-interventionism), which, granted, still involves restraining one's desire to take an eye for an eye, is weak. He writes,
"should a great injustice befall you, then do quickly five small ones besides. Hideous to behold is he on whom injustice presseth alone."

So far, Nietzsche has given us two apparently contradictory pieces of advice when dealing with an enemy. The first starts to resemble 'christ's uncoupling' (instead of retaliating, Zarathustra spares the adder and returns to him his poison) but has different motives (the adder is not worthy of Zarathustra's retaliation as Zarathustra is too rich in spirit). This gesture is also known as Nietzsche's "lordly dismissal." The second is the encouragement of retribution, but only when this retribution is absolutely necessary and such action serves to better both oneself and one's enemy. We should remember that when Nietzsche advises us to "do quickly five small ones besides" he is not advocating senseless wrongdoing, or wrongdoing for the sake of wrongdoing. He is bidding his enemies a challenge, willing that they, like him, will be able to bear the injustices done to them. As he says, "if the punishment be not also a right and an honour to the transgressor, I do not like your punishing."

This desire that, in doing his enemies injustices, he hopes to improve them, is heard when he asks "where find we justice, which is love with seeing eyes?" He thus reveals that love, and not petty resentment or hate, is at the bottom of his skirmishes.

This brings us back to Zizek on Christian love of one's enemy.